IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7240 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O THIPPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024.
2. SRI. THIPPEGOWDA, S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024.
3. SRI. BHARATH, S/O THIPPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024.
4. SRI. SHARATH S/O THIPPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024.
5. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE VENUGOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024.
6. SRI. SHANKAR, S/O N.KESHAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA, 1ST B-MAIN ROAD, VENKATEGOWDA LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH SETTY, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE, AMRUTHAHALLI, REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE- 560 001.. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR. PC., PRAYING TO ENGLAGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.104/2017 OF AMRUTHAHALLY P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(i)(x) OF SC/ST (POA), ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent police in their Crime No.104/2017 registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has taken a house property belonging to A1 to A5 on lease basis. While taking the lease amount, the accused No.2 had given four cheques towards the amount due. After the lease period, when the cheques presented before the Bank were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, the complainant and his family members initiated four proceedings in respect of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, parties entered into settlement and a joint memo was filed before the Court. Due to inevitable circumstances, the accused No.2 could not repay the amount as agreed in the joint memo within the stipulated time. Now the complainant and her family members have initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the outstanding amount due to them. The petitioner/accused No.2 undertakes to pay the entire amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the joint memo. In fact, the accused persons do not know the caste to which the complainant and her family members belongs. The last name of her husband and children are ‘Yadav’ , which is neither the Scheduled Caste nor the Scheduled Tribe community. The complaint allegation is ambiguous in nature lacking material particulars in respect of the offence under the provisions of Section 3(i) of SC & ST Act. If anticipatory bail is granted for a limited period, they will surrender before the concerned Court and seek for regular bail.
4. Learned HCGP opposes the petition.
5. Perused the complaint. A major portion of the complaint pertains to the incident prior to 29.8.2015. At the end of the complaint an incident of 14.7.2017 is cited. During which, the accused persons said to have been insulted the complainant by referring her caste. The complaint though pertains to the incident of 14.4.2017, the date incorporated is 18.4.2017. However it is registered on 16.6.2017. The enormous delay in lodging the complaint is not explained. The accused No.6 is said to be the stranger to the complaint and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner he has offered to take the house in question on lease. However, vague allegation is made against accused Nos.1 to 6 without specification as to which of the accused insulted the complainant by referring her caste. The complaint allegation fail to make a prima-facie case in respect of the offence punishable under SC/ST (POA) Act, thus prayer for anticipatory bail is not hit by Section 18 of the said Act.
6. In the light of the above, petition is allowed. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.104/2017 for a period of three months. Within the above period they shall surrender and move for regular bail. Till disposal of the regular bail petition, this order will be in force.
In the event of their arrest by the respondent police within the above period, they shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, with one surety for the likesum.
7. In view of the petition having been allowed, IA-1/2017 stands disposed of .
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/